TheLittleSongbird JM Barrie's Peter Pan is a classic for children and adults alike, Peter is not the most likable of characters but it is very meaningful, heart-warming, dark, charming and surprisingly complex as well(especially with the character of Captain Hook). This 2000 Broadway production is magnificent and captivating all the way through, there will always be a fondness for the Mary Martin version but in my personal opinion this one eclipses it in almost every way, though the ending has more of an emotional impact in the Martin version. What is remarkable about this production is not just how charming and light-hearted it is, to the extent that older audiences will feel like a child again in a good way, but how it's not afraid in bringing out the darker aspects of the story, the mermaids are quite evil here. Very faithful in detail and spirit. Even more remarkable is how it works on its own and as a musical. The production values are lavish, the costumes are fitting for the characters and the settings for the nursery and Marauders Rock- very creepy- are really effective. The rustic setting for the underground house appeals too. The music is rousing and beautiful, Peter's song(s) in the nursery and the numbers with the pirates and Hook were particularly great. The flying effects looked magical, the special effects are well incorporated and the choreography is full of life, especially with the Indians and pirates.The dialogue is both heart-warming and funny, you will shed a tear or two at the end and Hook and Smee's interactions are an immense joy to watch. The production is full of energy throughout, with the comedy and drama always convincing. The performances are spot on, especially from Cathy Rigby and Paul Schoeffler. Rigby is wonderfully boyish, and her performance is full of charisma, energy, comic timing and likability. She is also very athletic and has an amazing, powerful voice, all of this makes up for an accent that comes and goes(in fact a couple of the accents on the whole can sound a tad overdone), considering how so good her performance overall that feels like nothing. Schoeffler's baritone voice is rich and warm, he even hits some great top As and A flats. And his Hook from the facial expressions to how he uses his voice is hilarious without ever feeling like a buffoon. He succeeds also in bringing out some menacing aspects in the capture of Wendy, her brothers and the Lost Boys and with the poison, so while his performance is primarily on the comedy side it doesn't feel entirely done-for-laughs. Eliza Sangardia brings great charm to Wendy and gives the character great spunk, she does have a beautiful voice(much more appealing than the Wendy in the Mary Martin version) that you wish you heard more of. Wendy's brothers and the Lost Boys are full of enthusiasm and none of them show signs of fatigue or nerves, while Tiger Lily's athletic dancing is just jaw-dropping and the pirates are the very meaning of rollicking. All in all, hugely entertaining and magnificent in quality, an absolute must. 10/10 Bethany Cox

mike48128 Thus should have been better. The production values are far superior to the 1960 Mary Martin version which, sadly, is only available in bootleg copies of unknown quality. (Why doesn't NBC re-release it?)Cathy Rigby does a very good job of recreating the role, but in the close-ups she looks so much older than 40, and somehow older than Mary Martin. This detracts from the "youthful" look the character should have. Too bad she didn't make it when she was much younger.If you have never seen the 1960 Mary Martin version, you will probably like this version as the production values are first-rate and even the flying and acrobatics are better. However, NOBODY can re-create the performances of Mary Martin and Cyril Richard (as Capt. Hook)---they own the roles. Small children who have never seen the original version will probably love it. Minor faults: 1. The "Take your medicine" scene and "clap if you believe in fairies" scenes lack the "heart" of the original. 2. Capt. Hook is far more cruel in this version, and the mermaids are evil, which is closer to the Barrie story.Be aware that various "bootlegs" of the Mary Martin 1960 version are available. Watching them is like viewing a movie with your glasses off: The sound in good but the picture is fuzzy. Also, they are DVD-R's, which are not known to be very durable or long-lasting.

ibelieveinyou4ever Okay, so just a week ago I saw this version all the way through for the first time (and now I've seen it 3 times). This is, of course, after having seen 3 other versions of the same story of Peter and Wendy (Mary Martin version of the play, the Disney version which really sucks because it is so inaccurate, and the new live-action version). The one advantage I think I had with this version was that I've read the book (twice now) before seeing it. (I actually just finished reading it the second time today.)So what do I think of this version? It is very unique in that it incorporates different aspects that are captured in the book but not in any other version I've seen. Such as Peter's "shortish" name, Wendy calling Peter ignorant, Peter's outright unquestionable "in charge" attitude toward the boys, and probably the most important aspect--the dark and dangerous perspective of Neverland itself. Someone said in another comment that this version made Neverland out to be scary, and to be quite frank, it can be a scary place. Let's think about this, shall we? Neverland is the compilation of all imaginary playlands of children (according to the book), and (correct me if I'm wrong) many children find danger and darkness to be exciting. Don't boys sometimes imagine playing in misty dark waters with real danger lurking nearby? As Sir JM Barrie said himself, "In the old days at home the Neverland had always begun to look a little dark and threatening by bedtime. Then unexplored patches arose in it and spread; black shadows moved about in them; the roar of beasts of prey was quite different now, and above all, you lost the certainty that you could win. You were quite glad that the night-lights were on. You even liked Nana to say that this was just the mantelpiece over here, and that the Neverland was all make-believe. Of course the Neverland had been make-believe in those days; but it was real now, and there were no night-lights, and it was getting darker every moment, and where was Nana?" (Peter Pan, Chapter 4 "The Flight") Obviously Neverland could be a dark and dangerous place.Also, along the same lines, it has been said that the jokes don't seem to fit or something like that. I must say that I found the jokes quite entertaining and they fit quite well. They keep with the playful and childish attitude that the play should be taken with. Are grown-ups so de-sensitized by modern comedy that they cannot even find a little humor in what two or more children say to offend each other? Or even the usual banter, during a play, between the villain and audience?Even Peter's overall cockiness is refreshing. Barrie said himself, "It is humiliating to have to confess that this conceit of Peter was one of his most fascinating qualities. To put it with brutal frankness, there never was a cockier boy." (Peter Pan, Chapter 3 "Come Away, Come Away") And Cathy Rigby kept that cockiness in Peter throughout the play.I must also say that I was very impressed with the emotional turmoil that Peter is shown going through. Cathy Rigby does a wonderful job at portraying the pain that Peter is feeling at Wendy's leaving Neverland and about remembering how his mother had closed the window. And in the end, the anguish of finding Wendy grown up makes you want to hug Peter and tell him it's all right.And I'm surprised no one has mentioned Smee really. In this version he truly is lovable, just as Barrie described him. I found him very amusing, especially at the end when he returns with the Lost Boys to the Darling nursery (even if that wasn't really part of the story, it was still humorous and forgivable).The Indians, I think, gave an extra flare that was lacking in especially the Mary Martin version. Here we find the Indians actually acting like Indians instead of random people dressed in loose Indian shirts and pants. Whether the actors were true Indians in this version (which I highly doubt they were) they were much more believable and menacing, just as in the book.All in all, this version is very very close to the book itself, which I think is a great thing, as I am a stickler for accuracy in storytelling.Don't get me wrong, though. I grew up (literally) with the Mary Martin version and I will always have a special place in my heart for it, even if it is a bit cheesy on the acting and sets. I love the music in both versions equally (since they are pretty much the same), but sometimes I wonder... would the real Peter Pan break out into a catchy song about Neverland and about never growing up? Hmm... I wonder.

mystic This movie was 'OK' as far as the casting that they used.Peter Pan productions have always been a bone picker with me because for some unknown reason they have always used 'over the hill' actors and actresses in most of the main roles. The author wrote about kids and kids should be cast in the leading roles! Someday some producer and director will realize this and we will have a 'smashing' musical production of this great KIDS story.